alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2018436EN.01002002.xml

| 3.12.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 436/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.12.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 436/20

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (United Kingdom) made on 20 August 2018 — HM Revenue & Customs v HD

(Case C-544/18)

(2018/C 436/26)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Upper Tribunal

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: HM Revenue & Customs

Defendant: HD

Question referred

Must Article 49 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that such a person, who ceases self-employed activity in circumstances where there are physical constraints in the late stages of pregnancy and the aftermath of childbirth, retains the status of being self-employed, within the meaning of that Article, provided she returns to economic activity or seeking work within a reasonable period after the birth of her child?

---
##### 



Exhibit 11
 POTASH CORPORATION OF SASKATCHEWAN INC.
COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31
 2006
    
    
    2005A   Net income as reported, Canadian GAAP ($ millions)
    
    
    631.8
    
    
    
    542.9B   Items adjusting net income ($ millions)
    
    
    (6.0
    )
    
    
    (10.2
    )C   Net
income, U.S. GAAP ($ millions)
    
    
    625.8
    
    
    
    532.7D   Weighted average number of shares outstanding
    
    
    103,960,000
    
    
    
    108,568,000E   Net additional shares issuable for diluted earnings per share calculation (Canadian GAAP)
    
    
    2,270,000
    
    
    
    2,510,000F   Net
additional shares issuable for diluted earnings per share calculation (U.S. GAAP)
    
    
    2,263,000
    
    
    
    2,510,000CANADIAN GAAPBasic earnings per share (A/D)
    
    
    6.08
    
    
    
    5.00Diluted earnings per share (A/(D+E))
    
    
    5.95
    
    
    
    4.89UNITED STATES GAAPBasic earnings per share (C/D)
    
    
    6.02
    
    
    
    4.91Diluted earnings per share (C/(D+F))
    
    
    5.89
    
    
    
    4.80
# C_2020329EN.01001003.xml

| 5.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/10

---

Order of the President of the Court of 24 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha — Spain) — SR v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Ciudad Real

(Case C-534/19) (1)

(2020/C 329/17)

Language of the case: Spanish

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 372, 4.11.2019.

---
#### Thomas Ben RICHARDSON, Plaintiff in Error, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.

No. A-12413.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

March 20, 1957.

Rehearing Denied April 10, 1957.

Second Petition for Rehearing Denied April 17, 1957.

William N. Mounger, Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

POWELL, Judge.

Thomas Ben Richardson was charged by information filed in the district court of Logan County with the crime of larceny of domestic animals, was tried before a jury, and a verdict of guilty was returned, but the jury being unable to agree upon the punishment to be assessed, left that to the court, who assessed a penalty of seven years confinement in the penitentiary.

The record was filed in this court on October 31, 1956, and a brief was due within thirty days thereafter. No brief has ever been filed. Nevertheless, the case was set for oral argument on the March 6, 1957 docket. No one appeared in the case.

The petition in error is simply to the effect that the verdict is contrary to law, and that the punishment is excessive.

We have read the entire record, and find no error. * The evidence was overwhelming that defendant stole ten head of cattle, the property of C. H. Trotter, and received for them a check in the amount of $733.22 from the National Livestock Commission Company.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment of conviction must be, and is affirmed. Arnold v. State, 71 Okl.Cr. 166, 110 P.2d 309; Patterson v. State, 97 OkL Cr. 252, 261 P.2d 903.

BRETT, P. J., and NIX, J., concur.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C SS. 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANTTO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report onForm, 10-Q (the "Report") of Amaru, Inc. (the "Company"), for the period ended June 30, 2015 has filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Chua Leong Hin, President and Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

1.   The Report fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.   The information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company

 

 

 

/s/ Chua Leong Hin

President, Chief Executive Officer

August 19, 2015
Served: November 8, 2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation

on the 8th of November, 2012

Essential Air Service at

CORDOVA, GUSTAVUS, PETERSBURG, 

WRANGELL, AND YAKUTAT, ALASKA

Under 49 U.S.C. 41731 et seq. 

DOCKET DOT-OST-1998-4899

NOTICE OF EXTENSION

By Order 2011-2-1 the Department selected Alaska Airlines, Inc. to provide EAS at Cordova, 

Gustavus, Petersburg, Wrangell, and Yakutat, Alaska, with Boeing 737 aircraft for $8,262,938

annually through April 30, 2013. 

As the end of the current rate term was approaching, Order 2012-10-24 requested proposals at the 

five communities. However, on November 8, 2012, we received a request from Alaska Airlines for 

an extension to January 8.

We will grant that request. Proposals at Cordova, Gustavus, Petersburg, Wrangell, and 

Yakutat are now due on January 8, 2013.

Dennis DeVany, Chief,

EAS and Domestic Analysis

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at

http://www.regulations.gov
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-03-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-04-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-28-1998
<CASH>                                           2,372
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,378
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,378
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               25
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               14
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,339
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,378
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    54
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (33)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (21)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (21)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (21)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.00)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2021182EN.01000602.xml

| 10.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 18 March 2021 — Pometon SpA v European Commission

(Case C-440/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European steel abrasives market - Participation in bilateral and multilateral contacts with the aim of coordinating prices throughout the European Economic Area (EEA) - ‘Hybrid’ procedure having led successively to the adoption of a settlement decision and a decision made under the ordinary procedure - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 41 - Principle of impartiality of the European Commission - Article 48 - Presumption of innocence - Obligation to state reasons - Single and continuous infringement - Duration of the infringement - Equal treatment - Unlimited jurisdiction)

(2021/C 182/08)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Pometon SpA (represented by: E. Fabrizi, V. Veneziano and A. Molinaro, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented: initially by P. Rossi and T. Vecchi, and subsequently by P. Rossi and C. Sjödin, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside paragraphs 2 and 4 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 28 March 2019, Pometon v Commission (T-433/16, EU:T:2019:201); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside paragraphs 2 and 4 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 28 March 2019, Pometon v Commission (T-433/16, EU:T:2019:201);

| 2. | Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;

| 3. | Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Pometon SpA in Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2016) 3121 final of 25 May 2016 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39792 — Steel Abrasives) at EUR 2 633 895; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Pometon SpA in Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2016) 3121 final of 25 May 2016 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39792 — Steel Abrasives) at EUR 2 633 895;

| 4. | Orders Pometon SpA and the European Commission to bear their own costs relating to the appeal proceedings and the proceedings at first instance. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Pometon SpA and the European Commission to bear their own costs relating to the appeal proceedings and the proceedings at first instance.

---

(1)  OJ C 255, 29.7.2019.

---
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 115 (Tuesday, July 31, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Page S5692]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                   RECOGNITION OF THE MINORITY LEADER

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is 
recognized.

                          ____________________
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6990

CHRISTOPHER DEON GATTIS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

SUPERINTENDENT LAWRENCE SOLOMEN,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. Russell A. Eliason,

Magistrate Judge. (1:06-cv-00598-RAE)

Submitted: November 14, 2007 Decided: December 4, 2007

Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Deon Gattis, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,

III, Mary Carla Hollis, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
*

The parties consented to exercise of jurisdiction by a

magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Deon Gattis seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000)

petition.*

 The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court

is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gattis has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss

the appeal. We further deny Appellant’s motions for a stay pending

appeal and for discretionary leave to appeal. We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Pelosi v. Wailea Ranch Estates

15585

8/4/94

Denied

— Haw.App. -, 876 P.2d 1320
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 19, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 87723-87724]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27812]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 25

[IB Docket Nos. 22-411; 22-271; FCC 23-73; FR ID 190672]


Expediting Initial Processing of Satellite and Earth Station 
Applications; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document corrects the preamble to a final rule published 
in the Federal Register of December 6, 2023, regarding Expediting the 
Initial Processing of Satellite and Earth Station Applications. This 
correction removes a sentence that erroneously stated that a proposed 
rule relating to further expediting satellite and earth station 
application processing was published elsewhere in the same issue of the 
Federal Register. The proposed rule published in the Federal Register 
of December 8, 2023.

DATES: The correction is effective January 5, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia Malette, Attorney Advisor, 
Satellite Programs and Policy Division, Space

[[Page 87724]]

Bureau, at 202-418-2453 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#513b243d38307f3c303d34252534113732327f363e27"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7a100f16131b54171b161f0e0e1f3a1c1919541d150c">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Correction

    In final rule FR Doc. 2023-26699, in the issue of December 6, 2023, 
on page 84737 in the 3rd column, remove the sentence: ``A proposed rule 
relating to further expediting satellite and earth station application 
processing is published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal 
Register.''

    Dated: December 12, 2023.

Federal Communications Commission
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-27812 Filed 12-18-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 24.1



POWER OF ATTORNEY



The undersigned directors of Sky Financial Group, Inc. hereby authorize and appoint Marty E. Adams, Chairman, President and C.E.O., and/or Kevin T. Thompson, Executive
Vice President and C.F.O., as our agents, as attorneys-in-fact, with full power to act for us and all of us, for the purpose of subscribing our names to the Form 10-K thereof to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and for the
purpose of making any changes or amendments necessary or desirable to such documents and to any documents ancillary thereto, with the same powers and to the same effect as we may do if personally present:



Signed in counterpart and dated this 19th day of January, 2005.



|                          |  |                         
|------------------------- |  | ------------------------
|/s/ George N. Chandler II |  | /s/ Robert C. Duvall    
|George N. Chandler II     |  | Robert C. Duvall        
|                          | 
|/s/ Marylouise Fennell    |  | /s/ D. James Hilliker   
|Marylouise Fennell        |  | D. James Hilliker       
|                          | 
|/s/ Fred H. Johnson III   |  | /s/ Jonathan A. Levy    
|Fred H. Johnson III       |  | Jonathan A. Levy        
|                          | 
|/s/ Gerard P. Mastroianni |  | /s/ Thomas J. OShane   
|Gerard P. Mastroianni     |  | Thomas J. OShane       
|                          | 
|/s/ Gregory L. Ridler     |  | /s/ Emerson J. Ross, Jr.
|Gregory L. Ridler         |  | Emerson J. Ross, Jr.    
|                          | 
|/s/ C. Gregory Spangler   |  | /s/ Joseph N. Tosh II   
|C. Gregory Spangler       |  | Joseph N. Tosh II       
|                          | 
|/s/ R. John Wean III      |  |                         
|R. John Wean III          |  |
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

May 27, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136062 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 136062 

 COA: 281784 

Oakland CC: 2007-212806-FC 

STEVEN JOHN GRIMSLEY,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 30, 2008 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

p0519 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

May 27, 2008 

 Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4289 Reported in House (RH)]

<DOC>

                                                 Union Calendar No. 431
115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4289

                          [Report No. 115-571]

To amend the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act 
  to repeal certain disclosure requirements related to coal and mine 
                                safety.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 7, 2017

 Mr. Mooney of West Virginia (for himself and Mr. Barr) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial 
                                Services

                           February 20, 2018

  Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole 
       House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed
 [Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed 
                               in italic]
    [For text of introduced bill, see copy of bill as introduced on 
                           November 7, 2017]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act 
  to repeal certain disclosure requirements related to coal and mine 
                                safety.

 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF COAL AND MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS.

    (a) In General.--Section 1503 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform 
and Consumer Protection Act (15 U.S.C. 78m-2) is hereby repealed.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section 1(b) of 
the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act is 
amended by striking the item relating to section 1503.
                                                 Union Calendar No. 431

115th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4289

                          [Report No. 115-571]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

To amend the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act 
  to repeal certain disclosure requirements related to coal and mine 
                                safety.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           February 20, 2018

  Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole 
       House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed
```
#### James O. ADKINS, Appellant, v. Michael LESTER et al., Appellees. Brenda S. ADKINS and James O. Adkins, Appellants, v. CITY OF FAIRBANKS and Michael Lester et al., Appellees.

Nos. 2078, 2113.

Supreme Court of Alaska.

Feb. 3, 1975.

O. Nelson Parrish and James Parrish, Fairbanks, for appellant Brenda Adkins.

Burton C. Biss, Anchorage, for appellant James O. Adkins.

Thomas E. Fenton, of Call, Haycraft & Fenton, Fairbanks, for appellee Michael Lester.

D. Rebecca Snow, Law Office of Charles E. Cole, Fairbanks, for appellee City of Fairbanks.

Before CONNOR, ERWIN, BOOCH-EVER and FITZGERALD, JJ.

OPINION ON REHEARING

CONNOR, Justice.

Appellee City of Fairbanks in its petition for rehearing points out that at page 17 of our opinion we misstate the actualities of the case where we say:

> “ . . . The jury responded that it found no negligence on the part of ap-pellees but did not respond to the ques*1028tion of whether appellee Lester’s actions were a legal cause of the accident.”

In fact the jury did respond to the interrogatory on causation as follows:

> “2. If any of the parties were negligent, was that party’s negligence a proximate cause of the collision?

Yes o

Adkins JX |

Lester _ 1m

City of Fairbanks

However, as we have stated elsewhere in the opinion, on the facts of this case we deem the evidence on negligence and causation issues to be intertwined. From the way the interrogatory is phrased, it is quite possible that the jury, having found no negligence by appellees, thought that it must, therefore, find no causation.

The excluded opinion testimony of Officer Burnett that the speed of the emergency vehicle was excessive and was a contributing cause to the accident might have affected the answers of the jury as to both the negligence and causation issues. For these reasons the petition for rehearing is denied.

RABINOWITZ, C. L, not participating.